There are, I believe, more effective ways to recommend node title changes:

Consideration has become, I believe, the preferred way to suggest a new node title. Not only does this get the community's feedback in the form of votes, but it also gets the attention of people aware of the amount of work involved1 and experienced in the way we prefer to handle this sort of thing.

If you'd prefer a more private process, you can always /msg the editors group at large or any member of the group. I know I've tried to be very responsive to such requests and I believe the other janitors have, too.

Editor Requests is, of course, the oldest mechanism. However, the general sense I've gotten is that it's been generally superceded by the previously mentioned tools. I'm not sure this is "official," but it is an idea I've seen expressed in the ChatterBox on more than one occasion.

Personally, I would rather we used these tools instead making general posts in other areas. Why? Well, there really doen't seem to be a lot to discuss. Either the node needs to be retitled or it does not--and the Consideration process will help determine that. If the janitors have questions, they have areas where they can discuss things of this type.

If you're not sure, then perhaps it would be best to informally poll the Chatterbox or to privately /msg the author or one of the janitors. That seems the most team-oriented approach, as well as the most respectful of the original monk's feelings, as it may have been an honest mistake. I know that I prefer people quietly tell me when I've screwed up and I suspect that other people appreciate it when the same level of respect is accorded to them.

Also, I should point out that you really should use the [id://] prefix tag to link to internal nodes, as the HREF anchor you're currently using will appear to log people out if they're using the .com URL instead of the .org. For additional details, please see What shortcuts can I use for linking to other information?--especially Footnote 1 (which leads to a complete description of the problem).

--f

1 - Please be aware that I, personally, don't retitle nodes out of hand, though it certainly seems appropriate in this case. When I retitle nodes, I also take care to retitle each node in the thread. This is time consuming and takes much longer than simply adding <code> tags or performing other basic clean-up. But, that's my editorial style; there are others.

FWIW: The Editor Requests page continues to experience traffic and to serve a useful function (though it has a less prominent roll than it once had when it was a direct route to vroom and the only way to request a change in content).

Although many kinds of requests appear there, it seems to be most useful when a monk who does not yet have the power to submit nodes for Consideration notices something in a top-level node of their own that needs fixing. By 'needs fixing' I mean an obvious typo or an error in describing a problem -- not a Perl error.

It is also quite possible for such a person to request consideration through the ChatterBox, but some people seem to prefer the Editor Requests option.

Not all requests are carried out and the usual caveats about re-writing history apply.

Update: I just noticed that the node in question is in the Categorized Questions and Answers section. This means that there is another group, the QandAEditors, who are involved and can assist in fixing things if that is needed. IIRC, regular Editors do not have edit access to nodes in this area.